We have a small team. Keeping Trinity moving forward is a challenge. Yet I believe we have a committed and dedicated team, small or not, and somehow we keep moving forward.
I don't expect people to give up their day jobs to support Trinity, but I found this article interesting:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Independent-software-developers-go-fu...
I don't know what fund raising ideas we can use. Selling shirts and coffee cups requires serious overhead and personnel. Yet sometimes I wonder what we could do to keep Trinity moving at a nice speed.
Another idea I had today came from an RSS feed title:
"KDE SC 4.8.4 delivers monthly stabilization update"
After we release R14.0.0, I'm wondering whether we could do something similar. Every month or so we release a point release for Trinity that includes bug fixes and possibly one enhancement request.
Even if we push only two or three bug fixes, this monthly release would show the project is alive and well. A monthly stablization release also is great public relations because the various news people publish those press releases.
A monthly release does not mean a complete overhaul of the mirrors, etc. We would need only resync those packages that change. At three or four bug resolutions that likely would mean only a package or two changes.
A monthly stablization release will be much easier to manage after R14 than trying to backport patches for 3.5.13 because much changed between R14 and 3.5.13. After R14 we should be quite stable (ABI/API) and monthly bug patches should be easy to coordinate among packagers.
Just ideas and thoughts.
Darrell
On 8 June 2012 13:38, Darrell Anderson humanreadable@yahoo.com wrote:
We have a small team. Keeping Trinity moving forward is a challenge. Yet I believe we have a committed and dedicated team, small or not, and somehow we keep moving forward.
I don't expect people to give up their day jobs to support Trinity, but I found this article interesting:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Independent-software-developers-go-fu...
A lot of projects are going that way (monthly donations) for example Ardour has a full time developer with a 54K goal per year (larger project though). I wonder if we could setup a monthly pledge project.
I don't know what fund raising ideas we can use. Selling shirts and coffee cups requires serious overhead and personnel. Yet sometimes I wonder what we could do to keep Trinity moving at a nice speed.
There are websites that are already setup, that make it relatively easy to sell stuff for you (like zazzle)
here is the Arch Linux zazzle page: www.zazzle.com/archlinux*
After we release R14.0.0, I'm wondering whether we could do something similar. Every month or so we release a point release for Trinity that includes bug fixes and possibly one enhancement request.
So for example, KDE and GNOME are frequently pushing out updates, but all separately, if gnome-keyring gets an update, bump the version, push the new package for just gnome-keyring.
Even if we push only two or three bug fixes, this monthly release would show the project is alive and well. A monthly stablization release also is great public relations because the various news people publish those press releases.
A monthly release does not mean a complete overhaul of the mirrors, etc. We would need only resync those packages that change. At three or four bug resolutions that likely would mean only a package or two changes.
A monthly stablization release will be much easier to manage after R14 than trying to backport patches for 3.5.13 because much changed between R14 and 3.5.13. After R14 we should be quite stable (ABI/API) and monthly bug patches should be easy to coordinate among packagers.
A monthly or bi-monthly would be good. But I think it should continue to be based on work by the packagers, who cherry pick patches into a stable branch from Git. What do you think about that? with a more stable ABI it should be easier like you said.
Calvin
A lot of projects are going that way (monthly donations) for example Ardour has a full time developer with a 54K goal per year (larger project though). I wonder if we could setup a monthly pledge project.
Tim easily is the foremost developer for the project and unless there was a serious commitment of pledges I'm guessing he would not surrender his day job. :-) Somebody working a nominal job while attending school might be persuaded to drop the day job if the equivalent income was the same or better.
One idea could be to create a reward system. Perhaps a pledge fund could be used to pay developers to resolve bugs. I'm just guessing wildly, but perhaps $50 for Blocker, $40 for Critical, $30 for Major, $20 for Normal, $10 for Minor and $5 for Trivial. Build Issues and Regressions are part of the normal ebb and flow and pay nothing. Possibly $25 per enhancement request. We would need a review committe to ensure bugs are provided a correct status and we'd need some sort of criteria for establishing a bug report status. Otherwise everybody would post bug as Blocker. :-) Indirectly, a reward system might motivate a better response to resolving bugs within the developer's mail list.
I don't know what fund raising ideas we can use.
Selling shirts and coffee cups requires serious overhead and personnel. Yet sometimes I wonder what we could do to keep Trinity moving at a nice speed.
There are websites that are already setup, that make it relatively easy to sell stuff for you (like zazzle)
here is the Arch Linux zazzle page: www.zazzle.com/archlinux*
Fascinating. How to handle the overhead of ordering supplies, maintaining inventory, etc.? That requires people.
After we release R14.0.0, I'm wondering whether we
could do something similar. Every month or so we release a point release for Trinity that includes bug fixes and possibly one enhancement request.
So for example, KDE and GNOME are frequently pushing out updates, but all separately, if gnome-keyring gets an update, bump the version, push the new package for just gnome-keyring.
From tdeversion.h:
R <ABI VERSION> . <BUGFIX REVISION> . <SECURITY PATCHLEVEL> Security patchlevel is not present on initial release It is added on the first security release, starting with ".a" ".a" would correspond to a TDE_VERSION_RELEASE of 1, ".b" would be 2, etc. A new bugfix revision resets the security level A new ABI version resets both the bugfix revision and the security level
So even if we push only two or three bug patches in a certain period, the first stablization release after R14.0.0 would be R14.1.0. We could call each release a "Maintenance and bug fix release." Nothing fancy.
A monthly or bi-monthly would be good. But I think it should continue to be based on work by the packagers, who cherry pick patches into a stable branch from Git. What do you think about that? with a more stable ABI it should be easier like you said.
I use the phrase "monthly" loosely. If each period varied from one month to 6 weeks to 2 months, then we'd be fine. I think two months is the latest we prolong each maintenance release. Conversely, we really should have several bug fixes in each maintenance release. Otherwise we'll be accused of inflating version numbers only for the public relations perception. Perhaps we set a minimal goal of, say, 6 bug patches before we consider a maintenance release.
If no patch breaks ABI, then packagers would include all of the latest patches. Only the ABI-breaking patches would have to sit in the development tree for the next incremental R <ABI VERSION> release. I don't know enough about source tree management to know how we handle the distinction for packagers to exclude such patches yet allow developers to test the ABI-breaking patches too. That is, I would want to build each maintenance release directly from GIT rather than start a collection of separate patches. Perhaps we set up different branches of GIT.
Darrell
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Darrell Anderson humanreadable@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't know what fund raising ideas we can use.
Selling shirts and coffee cups requires serious overhead and personnel. Yet sometimes I wonder what we could do to keep Trinity moving at a nice speed.
There are websites that are already setup, that make it relatively easy to sell stuff for you (like zazzle)
here is the Arch Linux zazzle page: www.zazzle.com/archlinux*
Fascinating. How to handle the overhead of ordering supplies, maintaining inventory, etc.? That requires people.
In Zazzle's case, they do it for you--essentially, they print on demand and then drop-ship the item directly to the person who's ordered it. You-the-designer set the price point, Zazzle takes a fixed cut in return for its services, and you get whatever's left over. In other words, you effectively pay a bit more to get the thing printed in return for them handling the supply, shipping, inventory etc. hassles for you.
Fascinating. How to handle the overhead of ordering
supplies, maintaining inventory, etc.? That requires people.
In Zazzle's case, they do it for you--essentially, they print on demand and then drop-ship the item directly to the person who's ordered it. You-the-designer set the price point, Zazzle takes a fixed cut in return for its services, and you get whatever's left over. In other words, you effectively pay a bit more to get the thing printed in return for them handling the supply, shipping, inventory etc. hassles for you.
Ah-ha. Capiche.
Darrell
On 8 June 2012 15:43, Darrell Anderson humanreadable@yahoo.com wrote:
A lot of projects are going that way (monthly donations) for example Ardour has a full time developer with a 54K goal per year (larger project though). I wonder if we could setup a monthly pledge project.
Tim easily is the foremost developer for the project and unless there was a serious commitment of pledges I'm guessing he would not surrender his day job. :-) Somebody working a nominal job while attending school might be persuaded to drop the day job if the equivalent income was the same or better.
One idea could be to create a reward system. Perhaps a pledge fund could be used to pay developers to resolve bugs. I'm just guessing wildly, but perhaps $50 for Blocker, $40 for Critical, $30 for Major, $20 for Normal, $10 for Minor and $5 for Trivial. Build Issues and Regressions are part of the normal ebb and flow and pay nothing. Possibly $25 per enhancement request. We would need a review committe to ensure bugs are provided a correct status and we'd need some sort of criteria for establishing a bug report status. Otherwise everybody would post bug as Blocker. :-) Indirectly, a reward system might motivate a better response to resolving bugs within the developer's mail list.
I can't find the link - but a project did this with _AWESOME_ results - of course I can't find it. I would put the cash at a lower price though. 50 for blocker, 40 for critical, 20 for Major and Enhancement Requests. 5 for trivial and 1 for every branding fix or something.
The project that did it had good results, with like $2000 dollars they closed a serious amount of bugs, as well as got a lot of people involved in the project who weren't previously.
That requires another funding campaign but I think it would be awesome
I don't know what fund raising ideas we can use..
Selling shirts and coffee cups requires serious overhead and personnel. Yet sometimes I wonder what we could do to keep Trinity moving at a nice speed.
There are websites that are already setup, that make it relatively easy to sell stuff for you (like zazzle)
here is the Arch Linux zazzle page: www.zazzle.com/archlinux*
Fascinating. How to handle the overhead of ordering supplies, maintaining inventory, etc.? That requires people.
They print stuff, they make the t-shirts, the handle the shipping and billing and hand you a check afaik
After we release R14.0.0, I'm wondering whether we
could do something similar. Every month or so we release a point release for Trinity that includes bug fixes and possibly one enhancement request.
So for example, KDE and GNOME are frequently pushing out updates, but all separately, if gnome-keyring gets an update, bump the version, push the new package for just gnome-keyring.
From tdeversion.h:
R <ABI VERSION> . <BUGFIX REVISION> . <SECURITY PATCHLEVEL> Security patchlevel is not present on initial release It is added on the first security release, starting with ".a" ".a" would correspond to a TDE_VERSION_RELEASE of 1, ".b" would be 2, etc. A new bugfix revision resets the security level A new ABI version resets both the bugfix revision and the security level
So even if we push only two or three bug patches in a certain period, the first stablization release after R14.0.0 would be R14.1.0. We could call each release a "Maintenance and bug fix release." Nothing fancy.
A monthly or bi-monthly would be good. But I think it should continue to be based on work by the packagers, who cherry pick patches into a stable branch from Git. What do you think about that? with a more stable ABI it should be easier like you said.
I use the phrase "monthly" loosely. If each period varied from one month to 6 weeks to 2 months, then we'd be fine. I think two months is the latest we prolong each maintenance release. Conversely, we really should have several bug fixes in each maintenance release. Otherwise we'll be accused of inflating version numbers only for the public relations perception. Perhaps we set a minimal goal of, say, 6 bug patches before we consider a maintenance release.
If no patch breaks ABI, then packagers would include all of the latest patches. Only the ABI-breaking patches would have to sit in the development tree for the next incremental R <ABI VERSION> release. I don't know enough about source tree management to know how we handle the distinction for packagers to exclude such patches yet allow developers to test the ABI-breaking patches too. That is, I would want to build each maintenance release directly from GIT rather than start a collection of separate patches. Perhaps we set up different branches of GIT.
Darrell
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
One idea could be to create a reward system. Perhaps a
pledge fund could be used to pay developers to resolve bugs. I'm just guessing wildly, but perhaps $50 for Blocker, $40 for Critical, $30 for Major, $20 for Normal, $10 for Minor and $5 for Trivial. Build Issues and Regressions are part of the normal ebb and flow and pay nothing. Possibly $25 per enhancement request. We would need a review committe to ensure bugs are provided a correct status and we'd need some sort of criteria for establishing a bug report status. Otherwise everybody would post bug as Blocker. :-) Indirectly, a reward system might motivate a better response to resolving bugs within the developer's mail list.
I can't find the link - but a project did this with _AWESOME_ results - of course I can't find it. I would put the cash at a lower price though. 50 for blocker, 40 for critical, 20 for Major and Enhancement Requests. 5 for trivial and 1 for every branding fix or something.
The project that did it had good results, with like $2000 dollars they closed a serious amount of bugs, as well as got a lot of people involved in the project who weren't previously.
That requires another funding campaign but I think it would be awesome
Okay, let's keep that idea in our heads....
Darrell
On 06/08/2012 12:38 PM, Darrell Anderson wrote:
A monthly release does not mean a complete overhaul of the mirrors, etc. We would need only resync those packages that change. At three or four bug resolutions that likely would mean only a package or two changes.
I'm all for showing the progress each month. The nice thing about git is that for those building, a simple pull shows the progress. Since creating the tarballs from the git tree is a simple script that takes about 3 minutes, there is no reason not to provide the snapshots. I think that a monthly updates summary of bugs fixed, milestones reached would serve the project well.
I can't emphasize enough how well Arch Linux does this directly from the git repository they use. If you haven't done so, then check out the way Arch integrates its git project into its main page to keep everyone up to date on what has changed in the distribution. Just take this example:
then in the upper right where the search box is for packages, just type in 'cups' or another package you are interested in. It jumps straight to the package summary with links in the top right for source/changes, etc.. that links directly to the git repo.
I'm not pushing Arch, but I am pushing how they have done their site, their publication of updates, and their wiki -- it is the smartest setup I've seen and I've looked at a lot....
A monthly stablization release will be much easier to manage after R14 than trying to backport patches for 3.5.13 because much changed between R14 and 3.5.13. After R14 we should be quite stable (ABI/API) and monthly bug patches should be easy to coordinate among packagers.
The cleaner R14 is -- the easier to manage afterwards it will be. I think it is on the right track and I think you have some good ideas.
Just ideas and thoughts.
Darrell
I can't emphasize enough how well Arch Linux does this directly from the git repository they use. If you haven't done so, then check out the way Arch integrates its git project into its main page to keep everyone up to date on what has changed in the distribution. Just take this example:
Would you or another Archer investigate how we can adapt some of those ideas?
The cleaner R14 is -- the easier to manage afterwards it will be. I think it is on the right track and I think you have some good ideas.
Yes, I think R14 will leave us in great shape. My vision for after R14 is we use our computers instead of beating ourselves with bugs. :-) We're getting closer, for sure.
Darrell
On 06/08/2012 07:09 PM, Darrell Anderson wrote:
Would you or another Archer investigate how we can adapt some of those ideas?
Yes,
I'll take a look. I've done it before, but I'll need to take a closer look at the packages web interface. Arch uses the 'kiss' philosophy so it is going to be nothing but simple html, a pinch of js and mediawiki.
-
Calvin Morrison -
Darrell Anderson -
David C. Rankin -
E. Liddell